HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-20 Assessory Structure Height TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Public Hearing & Meeting - Tuesday, 20 December 1999 - 7: 30 p.m.
Board Members (*absent) Others Present
Lyle Raymond, Chairman Joan Fitch , Recording Secretary
John Pachai Peter Takach, Applicant
Mary Decker Mark Gunn, CEO
Steve Thane Tike Randall . Councilman-Elect
Public Present
Russ DeMond , Charles Bartholomew, Chris Hatch
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m . by Chairman Lyle Raymond.
L. Raymond: It's 7:40 and we're opening the Hearing. The first thing I've got to do is read the
announcement. I've got to find it. Had it right here. Wait a minute; here it is. Okay, here we go .
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. Please take notice that the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Groton, County of Tompkins, State of New York, will
hold a public hearing on December 20th, 1999 at 7:30 PM at the Town Hall, 101 Conger
Boulevard, Groton, NY, for the purpose of considering an appeal for a variance by Peter
Takach, 1215 Route 222, Cortland, New York, to construct a detached garage at a greater
height than is allowed in a Rural Agricultural District. The appeal specifically relates to
Section 342. 2(e) of the Groton Land Use and Development Code which requires a maximum
height of 12 feet for accessory structures. Lyle Raymond, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals.
Okay. And just so everybody knows who we are, I'm Lyle Raymond, Chairman of the Board. I live on
Old Stage Road
S. Thane : Steve Thane . Old Stage Road ,
J. Pachai: John Pachai. Cedar Lane ,
M. Decker: Mary Decker. Tallmadge Road,
L. Raymond: Okay. I have my Chair's statement here.
The primary purposes of this Hearing are to hear an appeal to construct a detached garage
of greater height than the 12 foot maximum allowed in a Rural Agricultural District.
The principal task for the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals at this Hearing is to hear
testimony from the appellant and any other interested parties on this appeal. We will ask
Page 1 of 16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
questions to ensure that the ZBA members understand the nature of what is being proposed,
and the reasons why a variance is being requested.
The Zoning Board of Appeals must consider two basic things in deciding upon an appeal for
a variance from area or dimension regulations. 711ese are (1 ) the benefit to the applicant,
and (2) any harmful. effects on the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood
(and the Town generally) if the variance is granted Essentially, the ZBA is charged with
weighing or balancing these two interests.
At the close of the Hearing, the ZBA will either (1 ) immediately re-convene to make a
decision in this case or (2), if deemed necessary, defer its decision until a later date, as
provided for in the law. The decision meeting is open to the public, but no further testimony
will be heard after the close of the Hearing.
The Zoning Board of Appeals wilt make its decision based upon information provided in the
Public Hearing and fie questions required are by both State Law and the Town Code.
These questions concern impacts on the neighborhood character, whether a feasible
alternative exists for the applicant that does not require a variance, how substantial the
difference is between what the applicant is requesting and the Groton Code, environmental
effects, and whether the need for a variance was se f created
You do not have to answer these questions at the Hearing, but I'm just giving this for your information.
These are the questions that we have to go through in making our decision . Generally we receive a
communication from the Tompkins County Department of Planning indicating whether the granting of
the variance would have any impact on anything within 500 feet of a County road, State road, or any
other public land . Usually that it is here, but I don' t see it. We haven't received that tonight. So
whatever action we may take probably will have to be conditioned upon the receipt of the letter from
the County Planning Board . Do you see something, Mary? Nope, that' s not it. Okay, and we don't
have any other communications that we've received from anyone ; so with that, we might as well open
the Hearing to whoever wishes to speak, and usually the Appellant has the first chance to speak. So ,
Peter, would you like to go ahead and explain in your own words what it is you're up to and why you
want a variance?
P. Takach: What I started with was, and this project started this summer, and what I was doing
was the garage that was next to the road , next to 222 , there was problems with break-ins and the like
along my road. My neighbors were robbed. I was robbed a few years back, and there seems to be a lot
of mischief going on in that area. So I didn't want to park anymore down there and I didn't want to
put anything valuable in that garage . It was also an eyesore as you drive by. It was pretty much falling
in, although I doubt if it would fall in because it was pretty strong. So my wife and I decided we were
Page 2 of 16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
going to remove it and move the garage closer to the home , the house up on top, so it was closer for us
to watch it, and also it would look nicer. It's going to be new construction meeting all the Codes. We
have a reputable contractor we've signed an agreement with . The structure at the time of design is a
two-car garage that has a small roof on it on the side for a picnic area. A 12 by 12 roof off to the side,
and upstairs is a storage area. And 12 -foot -- at the time , there was no variance when I was looking
into this . My neighbor just gone done building one , the exact same thing as I want to do, which is --
no problem, I went over and looked at it and we talked about it. It was real nice and it was about 6-
foot off my property line, so it's okay. And at the time, I didn't know that this was necessary, so I
signed an agreement with my contractor for a 2-story structure , an 18-foot high structure, which turns
out to be 6 foot over the Code . We didn't think at the time that there was going to be a problem with
the Building Permit,
L. Raymond: You didn't have the Building Permit in hand at that time? So you went ahead with
the contractor before you applied for the permit?
P. Takach: I did not have the Building Permit, Right. And that was my bad timing, because it was
early September when we decided on doing this project. There was no formal drawing done until after
that time. And once he had that complete, that is when we went down for the Building Permit. That
refers to this drawing here which I think you have .
L. Raymond: Yes. Is that the same as these?
P. Takach: Yes. That's a little nicer. That's not the same as this . This is the two-bay garage.
L. Raymond: Oh, this has two doors; this only has one .
P. Takach: It's a two-car garage, two-bay garage, 24 by 24. And to the peak here is 18 foot.
L. Raymond: Gotcha.
P. Takach: And this is, of course, this space here isn't much except for storage and to be able to
just bend over a little bit without having to get through the whole thing, the whole 24 depth . This is
what he came up with . And when he had this done, he went down that day in fact, down to Mark
Gunn, and asked for a Building Permit. And that's when we found out that this was found in the
Code and that it was being interpreted differently, that it's not a side wall matter, it's to the peak.
L. Raymond: Yes. For the record , Peter has discussed this with me and that's why I want to have it
on the record here. I explained to Peter the change in how the Code is read is recent. And that the
traditional method that the Code Enforcement Officers have been using for quite a few years was found
Page 3 of 16
1 1
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
to be in error. That when the Code is read correctly, it doesn't say that 12 feet applies to the side wall
only, which is the way it had been interpreted . As you may have already found out if you read the Code
P. Takach: Yes, I did.
L. Raymond: It says explicitly in the Code , from the highest point on the structure to the grade level.
And we discovered this back in September as we got into this garage business . So since then , Mark
has had to interpret the Code in that way since we discovered that' s what the Code says. So that's
why I wanted to have this explained and have it in the Hearing record. And that's what you got into ,
and some other folks got into it somewhat too .
P. Takach: Because, at the time when I was talking to my neighbor and talking and finding out
about what he had to go through for a similar structure, this was a drawing I did for my excavators .
And I did this -- I had a hand drawing for him, and then I said I was going to do it better on the
computer. And as you can see, it was dated before the time -- it's still dated, after getting on the
computer, well before this was found as being read a little differently. And I did have the proposed two-
car garage at the same place where I plan on building it.
L. Raymond: Right. Right. Okay. So at the time you applied for the permit, you had -- when we
were there and saw your place, Steve and I , you had the cement foundation in. Was that in when you
applied for the permit, or P. Takach: That was during the same time we were doing that that we went down for the permit.
So it was at a similar time.
L. Raymond: Okay. Okay. And you had excavated it back into the hill a little bit there, I noticed, in
order to have a level site .
P. Takach: In fact, I brought some pictures just in case you'd like to see them.
L. Raymond: Yes.
P. Takach: This is the -- this first picture is a picture of the garage that was torn down .
L. Raymond: Okay. And that was right down by your driveway?
P. Takach: This is right next to 222 .
M. Decker: It sat right down there close .
Page 4 of 16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
P. Takach: As the survey map shows, it was right on the road, very close. And now the proposal
is to move it behind the house , between the house and the barn . This is why I thought pictures would
help . As you can see, this is the barn . This is where I had it excavated. And then this is going to be
the area where the garage is. This was before the slab was put in. And the garage is going to be located
-- the house is right here - - the garage is going to be located right here. The slab is right in front of the
barn . And this hillside is roughly around -- to the top of that hillside is probably around 12 feet. And
then to the very top of the hill, it's probably closer to about 14 or 15 feet, so it's only going to be about
a few feet of peak that you can see from the neighbor's house .
L. Raymond: Right, Right,
P. Takach: And that shows here . As you can see from the grade level here, you can see the peak
of his new garage , his new similar garage to the one that I'm building right here . That's what this green
is. And this will be located over here behind the barn. And I took another picture to show you what
his view will be . This is what it looks like with the slab now. The slab is located out back behind the
house, and a different view from looking from the other way.
L. Raymond: Right, Right,
P. Takach: Whoops -- wrong picture . Basically, this is the picture I wanted to show you . This is
the barn. I tried to get the edge of the barn in there . This is right on the top and we're standing now
on top of the hillside. And this is the view of my closest neighbor. And that's his new garage right
there . And as you can see, his new garage pretty much blocks the whole view of even the barn right
now .
L. Raymond: Yes. Okay.
S. Thane: Can I ask -- now this is going to sit well not quite inbetween the house and the barn ,
but in that area -- how tall is the house?
P. Takach: It's roughly -- I'd say to the tallest peak here, which is going to be R. DeMond: Twenty-six or 28 feet. About the same as mine .
P. Takach: Is it about that? I was going to say somewhere in the neighborhood of that.
S. Thane: And the height to the top of the barn?
Page 5 of 16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
P. Takach: Height to the top of the barn -- it's at a different grade. That's closer to probably
around 40 feet. And that's at a grade that's about 14 foot above where the garage is going.
S. Thane : So even at 18 feet, it's going to nestle in below both of those.
P. Takach: Right.
J. Pachai: Did you cut into the bank at all for the slab -- and regrade?
P. Takach: What I did was I removed that back -- yes, I cut into the -- to level it off so that we
could put the slab in.
J. Pachai: Originally you had this slope and you reconfigured it. Okay. So it's actually set in
from the originally existing grade -- by about how much?
P. Takach: The average grade at that point -- it was a very steep grade , and it started out at house
level and then it went up to as high as 14, And what we took out was about two steps down off of the
barn , so this level is probably only about two feet above the house level now. So it's actually down
from where --
J. Pachai: So you actually cut into the highest point and your slab there -- and I realize it's not
possible or practical -- but if you had put your slab there without having removed any earth other than
the area that the slab took up , how high would it be from the slab to the --
P. Takach: To that highest point? It would probably be up around 8 to 10 feet. So I didn't want it
to be up --
J. Pachai: That's at the back of the garage?
P. Takach: Yes, that's at the back of the garage .
J. Pachai: Basically, it would only be -- if you put it right next to the existing grade , it would only
be sticking out --
P. Takach: Three foot, four foot. Yes.
L. Raymond: Above the grade on the right side .
Page 6 of 16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
P. Takach: And the peak will be about 2 foot or 4 foot above that. I also brought a map ,just in
case -- I wasn't sure if you had this also . This was the existing garage when we first purchased the
property.
L. Raymond: Oh, yes.
P. Takach: And this is what I tore down . This is the centerline of Route 222 , so the road is
actually a lot closer than that.
L. Raymond: Probably it was grandfathered .
P. Takach: And it's going to be moved from here, basically -- well, it's not being moved. It's being
replaced --
L. Raymond: The site is being moved.
P. Takach: To behind the house here . So it's far enough from the road.
L. Raymond: Sounds clear enough . Any other questions for Peter?
J. Pachai: Not from me .
L. Raymond: None from me either. I think you explained it pretty well . Do we have any comments
from anyone else who is attending the Hearing here on this application by Peter?
R. DeMond: I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be granted a variance. An 8-foot high wall
isn't going to cut it for a garage.
J. Pachai: We understand that. In fact, we recommended that it be changed .
R. DeMond: I have no problem with it. I look right straight into it every day .
L. Raymond: Okay. Hasn't hurt your eyes yet, huh? Okay. Anyone else have anything they want
to say at the Hearing? The Hearing is still open here for any comments. Okay, if everyone -- and you
have all the information you wanted to give us, with that we may as well close the Hearing, hadn't we?
As of 8 o'clock. And with the Hearing closed , we're not formally in session at the moment. In a minute
we'll go into our Decision session and , as I indicated at the beginning, now that the Hearing is closed,
that's the end of the input from everyone else and you are free to sit here and wait and watch us
Page 7 of 16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
discuss among ourselves how we decide this case. And we'll come up with a decision , probably,
tonight. Are you ready, Joan, to take on the next one?
J. Fitch: I'm ready.
DECISION MEETING
L. Raymond: All right. We'll reconvene for our Decision Meeting at 8 : 02 p.m.
Approval of Minutes - Eckert Decision on 11 / 29 /99
L. Raymond: And the first order of business here for us is the approval of the Minutes from the last
meeting here . This isn't the last one , this is from the first one -- no, it's the second one . It's the
setback for Mr. Eckert, Okay. Anybody want to look at them before we decide whether to approve them
or not? It looks like a pretty good record to me. I don't know how you do it, Joan . As far as I'm
concerned, I think it looks pretty good and I know what I said. Anybody want to make a motion to
approve?
J. Pachai: I'll so move .
L. Raymond: Okay. Second?
S. Thane: Second .
L. Raymond: We have a motion made and seconded to approve the Minutes. Without further
discussion, we approve the Minutes by a unanimous vote. All in favor? (All members present indicated
aye . ) Okay, we got rid of that.
Takach Decision
L. Raymond: So now we go to work and deal with the five questions here that we have to deal with
on this one . I have some thoughts about all these garage variances, given the situation with the Code,
but let's save that until later and deal with ,just this particular one here . Does anyone of you see that
the building of this structure is going to in any way detract from the neighborhood in such a way that
it would affect somebody's property value or whatever`?
J. Pachai: Negative . In fact, it seems to be improving it over what it was originally.
L. Raymond: I agree. That's what I would think. I think it's an improvement rather than a
detraction from the neighborhood , what he's proposing. In other words, what we're saying is that it
Page 8 of 16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
will improve the value of the applicant's property as well as the setting for the neighbors' property
around there to move into a place near that. I don't see any reason why not. So therefore , we need to
come up with a finding. Finding # 1 : The ZBA finds the proposed structure (a) will not detract from
the character of the neighborhood, and (b) and will likely enhance it. Joan, have we got this?
J. Fitch: The ZBA finds the proposed structure (a) will not detract from the character of the
neighborhood and , (b) will likely enhance it.
L. Raymond: Okay. All right, and I've been changing it a little bit here from the way the State and
the Code has it and going to the substantial difference first. It seemed to be a little better and then go
to the alternatives. So what do we think about substantial difference? My own opinion is, no , it's not
a substantial difference . But do we want to add in there some of the things that you mentioned here,
John, about height above the terrain on the high side and low side?
M. Decker: He' s eliminated that by the excavating that he' s done .
J. Pachai: Yes, but it would --
M. Decker: Otherwise, it would really be more obvious.
J. Pachai: I think that might fall under alternatives in the sense that you wouldn't have expected
that excavation to have occurred prior to the Appeal. That is the alternative would be to put the dirt
back, which doesn't make any sense. It's really -- I don't think we need to attach that to the
substantial difference .
L. Raymond: I'm not sure I follow you either.
J. Pachai: The idea of the excavation .
L. Raymond: Oh, I see. You favor that we just say that it is not a substantial difference, period,
whether it was unlevel or excavated?
J. Pachai: Well, we need to substantiate that. I mean at least explain why we feel it's not
substantial .
M. Decker: Well, half the battle of keeping with the character of the neighborhood , or the setting,
or the enhancement that is keeping it, as the term you used, as compatible to the roof lines that we
already have on that property -- house and barn. You've got a couple of, you know - -
Page 9 of 16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
J. Pachai: So we could say visually it's not a substantial --
M. Decker: It's in proportion to the other existing structures. Therefore, it cannot be considered
or is not considered to be a substantial --
L. Raymond: Finding # 2: The ZBA finds that visually the height of the proposed structure is
compatible with existing structures on this property, as well as adjoining properties. All right. I guess
that's it. Joan, have we got it here?
J. Fitch: The ZBA finds that visually the height of the proposed structure is compatible with
existing structures on this property, as well as adjoining properties.
L. Raymond: Okay. Now let's deal with alternatives. Okay, Finding #3 will deal, then, with
alternatives.
J. Pachai: Because of the topography of the land,L. Raymond: The alternative has to do with height. It's only height.
J. Pachai: But with the topography of the property, the structure could have been built --
S . Thane: Are you suggesting he could have built it back into the hill? Is that what you said?
J. Pachai: No , actually I was thinking in terms of the way the land flows.
M. Decker: Hit it from a different angle .
L. Raymond: Well, the way I would see it -- yes, there are alternative ways that the structure could
have been built and meet the Code ; however, doing it in that way would result in a structure that
would likely detract from the character of the neighborhood rather than enhance it. Going back to our
first finding. Because of the requirements of the height you're stick with the roof style .
M. Decker: And when you're putting in a -- I don't care whatever the cost of a building or
structure, today they're not -- there's nothing built cheap , so if you're going to put the money into it,
then it's not that you want it just for what you want but, you know, you've got to give consideration of
that too with the needs that you're trying to accomplish . I know that's not part of it, but a little
common sense goes a long way.
Page 10 of 16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
L. Raymond: Yes . Well, in keeping with the Code here, I think we are . Again, it comes down to the
type of decision -- it's a subjective one -- if we were really, really tough we could say yes, he could build
a structure there of at least 12 foot and --
M. Decker: Yes, but it would not be compatible with what he's doing. Therefore, that would
deduct from these other L. Raymond% It would deduct from the other two .
J. Pachai: Do we know the pitch of the roof'? Of the house? Can we request that information?
What's the roof pitch of your home?
L. Raymond: This is off the record.
J. Fitch: You can ask questions, but no one in the audience can make any comments .
S. Thane : It's considered fact-finding.
L. Raymond: Fact finding. Okay. I couldn't answer that for my house ; I wouldn't know.
J. Pachai: Do we have the photos that were here?
M. Decker: Yes, but I don't think it shows enough to really --
J. Pachai: I'd say it looks almost like an 8 : 12 , doesn't it? Seven maybe ; I don't think it's a six.
S . Thane: I would say six.
J. Pachai: It might be a six, yes. Although my impression is that this is -- I see what it is, it's
actually a dormer type. The barn looks more like it's steeper.
L. Raymond: It I& I think it is.
J. Pachai: This doesn't help much . I thought it might - - okay, we're looking at alternatives, so L. Raymond: So is there a way he could do it without having to get a variance -- that's what the
alternative is. Technically yes, but from a viable -- this is not an alternative .
Page 11 of 16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
M. Decker: Just be straightforward then. Say yes, we could stick to Code, but then we would be
basically diminishing the character of the neighborhood .
J. Pachai: A lower roof pitch, if we required a lesser roof pitch, it would be incompatible with the
existing, the pitch of the existing roofs which may not be exactly 10 : 12 but, nonetheless, much steeper
than 2 : 12 or 4 : 12 , So that alternative is not viable .
M. Decker: And considering you're on a sloped terrain.
L. Raymond: In relation to alternatives that would be strictly according to Code .
J. Pachai: Right.
M. Decker: The alternatives that would stick with the Code -- and, I guess, you're going to have to
list the deficiencies.
L. Raymond: All right. Finding # 3: The ZBA finds that height alternatives that strictly adhere to
the Code would result in a less desirable appearance (see Finding # 1 ) . Okay, Joan , have we got this?
J. Fitch: Yes. The ZBA finds that height alternatives that strictly adhere to the Code would
result in a less desirable appearance (see Finding # 1 ) .
L. Raymond: Okay. So now, Finding #4 has to do with the environmental effects, and the first one
is that the proposed structure is exempt from SEQRA under Type II actions. We have no other
environmental impacts. Nothing like the one with Lane where we had drainage, and with Eckert where
we had questions about drainage going onto the road . We don't have anything like that as far as I can
see . He's way back from the road.
J. Pachai: This is just common sense that you would cut away the earth and regrade . But again,
that would come into play here in that if you plugged it in the earth , then you'd have significant water
problems -- if you basically buried part of the structure .
M. Decker: Then you'd have problems.
J. Pachai: It also provides for a safer situation for the neighborhood because it's less of a slope
which is one of the things in character of the neighborhood -- it's also the safety aspect of it.
Page 12 of 16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
L. Raymond: Well , he pointed out in the Hearing that this is replacing an old structure that was
down near the road . And in terms of environmental, and environmental includes more than just
drainage and runoff. We're supposed to look at parking, traffic, safety, and other stuff.
J. Pachai: But does the height impact it?
L. Raymond: But is it only the height that impacts it. That's right, too. It's not the location we're
looking at, it's the height. We don't have any other environmental impacts then to mention. We just
say the proposed structure is exempt from SEAR regulations and let it go at that. We don't need to say
there's any other because there isn't any . All right. Finding #5 .
J. Pachai: What's interesting is that it's self-created . When he started planning this project, the
Code Enforcement Officer was using the Code as he thought he should , but it was incorrect.
L. Raymond: I'm not so sure we can say this is self-created based on that. He did go by the Code .
J. Pachai: Yes, but you're kind of weighing out that ignorance of the law is not excuse --
M. Decker: But ignorance of the law was more on us in this case . I mean we were - -
J. Pachai: But now that I remember, I was reading something, a brief or something, not too long
ago where they determined that even though the Code Enforcement Officer made a statement in writing
that something was okay to do, when push came to shove it was found that the Code Enforcement
Officer was incorrect and the Code prevails .
M. Decker: Well, we found that out.
L. Raymond: The only reason we found it out was because we got into this garage business more
heavily than we ever have before and we started looking at the Code from that aspect. It's the only
reason I discovered it. When we did Becker over there --
S. Thane : Eckert?
L. Raymond: The one with the tall one over there in Peruville. Mr. Becker. And at that time, we
went through that and I never picked it up . And neither did anybody else .
M. Decker: That was a few years ago .
Page 13 of 16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
L. Raymond: Yes, We could have picked it up then, but we never did. That was our first garage , as I
recall, since I don't know when . And it's only when Mr, Eckert came it caused me to look at the Code
way more explicitly than I ever had before that I discovered it,
J. Pachai: We could say that yes, it is self-created, but the Code has been misinterpreted for so
long that it's questionable as to whether - -
L. Raymond: Yes, I think you're on the right track.
J. Pachai: The responsibility or the liability is not entirely the applicant's.
L. Raymond: I like that. Let me see now, Finding #5: The ZBA finds that the need for the variance
is self-created, but it is also understood that due to the history of previous misinterpretations of the
Code shows that the Town shares the responsibility for the creation of the situation leading to this
Appeal. Let's see if we can get it straight, Joan?
J. Fitch: The ZBA finds that the need for the variance is self-created, but it is also understood
that due to the history of previous misinterpretations of the Code shows that the Town shares the
responsibility for the creation of the situation leading to this Appeal.
L. Raymond: Fine. And I would add another finding, and that's the same one we put in the last
one , Finding #6: The Town Board and the Planning Board are on record as recognizing that the
height requirements for accessory structures are inadequate as the Code, is presently written, Okay,
Joan?
J. Pitch: The Town Board and the Planning Board are on record as recognizing that the height
requirements for accessory structures are inadequate as the Code is presently written,
L. Raymond: And we decided last time not to say that the height requirements are too little or too
low because the record is awfully mixed. It's better just so say inadequate . Okay. So have we got any
more findings we want to make on this? I don't think so . So now we get down to our therefore . Does
somebody want to make a motion here that we grant the variance , grant the requested variance? I
guess that's all we have to say . We've made all the findings.
J. Fitch: You've got the contingency upon receipt of the letter from the Tompkins County
Planning Board ,
L. Raymond: Oh, that's right, Who's making the motion?
Page 14 of 16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
J. Pachai: Can we just have Joan read back the motion from last week? Do you have it there?
J. Fitch: Yes.
J. Pachai: And we'll just delete the portion on the eave troughs.
J. Fitch: For Mr. Lane . John Pachai moves that we grant both variances, as requested ,
contingent upon - -
J. Pachai: The variance , in this case.
J. Fitch: I'm reading what you had last time . Contingent upon -- and you've got the eave
trough business in here.
J. Pachai: Let's just start from fresh .
L. Raymond: Therefore, the requested height variance is granted on condition of receipt of a
statement of no impact from the Tompkins County Planning Department, Okay, John?
J. Pachai: I'll move that the requested height variance be granted on condition of receipt of a
statement of no impact from the Tompkins County Planning Department,
L. Raymond: Anybody got a second?
S. Thane: I'll second it.
L. Raymond: Okay. Motion made and seconded that the requested variance be granted on
condition . . . Joan , call the roll here.
J. Fitch: Okay. Lyle Raymond .
L. Raymond: Aye,
J. Fitch: Steve Thane ,
S. Thane: Aye.
J. Fitch: Mary Decker,
Page 15 of 16
• Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 20 December 1999
M. Decker: Aye,
J. Fitch: John Pachai ,
J. Pachai: Aye.
L. Raymond: Okay, we can say that the meeting therefore is closing at 8:40. Okay, Peter, you've got
your variance . It will be conditioned, however, as you heard, on receipt of the letter from the County
Planning Department which we have to have, saying no impact. Usually the letter is here, and it's not.
And so Mark can't move on it to let you proceed until we get that letter. It shouldn't be a big problem.
Jo . Fitch
Recording Secretary
Page 16 of 16